Richard Butler

Richard Butler

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 7, 2007

Comments

Total: 5537, showing: 1301 – 1320
« First‹ Previous6465666768Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rfsIII: Great article!
One question: Are you saying that it's only through the camera makers' software that we can achieve these effects? Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP and the rest won't give us access to these features?
If true this is a bummer because the mfr software is awful. Every time I have to use Nikon's VIewNX I feel like throwing my computer (and my camera) into the Mersey.

This article is just looking at the systems provided in common cameras. It's absolutely possible to manually adjust your exposure to capture extra highlights and many pieces of software will give you tools to adjust the tonal response with varying degrees of sophistication.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Leonp: Not having read the whole article (Not a neative speaker so it wille take me some time) I do remember some of the the illustrations have been used before here:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0388507676/sources-of-noise-part-two-electronic-noise
Has the previous article been updated?

The two articles use the same *style* of diagram (so that the exposure, capture and processing process is shown in the same manner), but the concepts they demonstrate are different.

This is a totally new article.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: I am a Sony shooter, in daylight high dynamic range situation
this is my way to get maximum dynamic range
1. underexpose by -2/3EV to 1 EV
2. Use DRO 5

if use this way in ISO 100/200, image look OK (not a lot of noise)
also lots of highlight data due to underexposure

Any comment? Anyone do it that way like me?

Underexposing by 1EV (which essentially means using an ISO 200 exposure) and applying DRO 5 is directly comparable to what Nikon's Active D-Lighting Extra High setting does.

The only difference is that the Nikon automatically reduces the exposure whereas you need to do it manually. The adaptive tone curves both brands apply are, at least to a degree, both based on Apical's algorithms.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

gorllu: I don't understand one thing. How does shadow/highlight setting in photoshop or lightroom works so I can get astonishing DR from my D800. I mean, why there is no such a preset build in camera so I can shoot jpeg (not for serious work) ? I have adjusted tone curve so image looks flat, but it has little to do with shadow and highlight preset.

The 'Highlights' and 'Shadows' sliders in ACR are adaptive tone curve adjustments - they adjust either the highlights or shadows in a context-sensitive manner (as the previous posters have suggested).

_sem_ hits on an important point: any highlight recovery is based on reconstruction. Sometimes this can work well but the likelihood of it producing an acceptable result decreases as more information is blown. I don't know whether JPEG engines don't attempt this because it would be too processor intensive or because applying the wrong amount can produce odd results (with spurious colour) which might ruin the JPEG.

Unless your JPEG engine is so badly calibrated that it fails, by default, to include the full tonal range captured by each colour channel, then there should be very little recoverable highlight data in your Raw files. The degree of recoverability generally depends on luck (which colour the clipped area should be) and how good the algorithms are at guessing a plausible result.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

There are three possible ways of capitalizing the word 'raw.'

RAW - There is no reason to use this. The word is not an acronym. We use this only when referring to a camera's menu option that expresses it in this way.

This leaves 'Raw' and 'raw' as options. We prefer the usage 'Raw' in an attempt to make clear that it's a noun, not an adjective. 'Raw' files are not necessarily 'raw' in the sense that they are not subject to a degree of processing, first. Although not strictly a proper noun, the use of an initial capital avoids this ambiguity.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: Can you repeat to me once more why no a6500? I think it didn't get asked in the last five threads. And also why you call this crop sensor? Another diatribe about that is just about due. ;-)

Well...

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 01:36 UTC
On article Shaking up the market: Pentax K-70 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Morpho Hunter: Wow .. the pixel shift image quality is no where as good as that for the Olympus OMD- EM5 MK ii

The two systems work slightly differently.

The Pentax system takes four images and shifts the sensor three times, so that each output pixel in the image has been captured with a Red, a Blue and two Green pixels.

This means it has greater color information (and less noise) at each output pixel but the overall number of pixels remains at 24 million. (Greater colour resolution but the same spacial resolution).

The Olympus system starts by doing the same thing (a four-shot R, G, B, G capture). Then it shifts its sensor up and to the left by 1/2 a pixel width. It then repeats the four shot cycle.

This means it has to shoot 8 shots but it raises the spacial resolution as well as cancelling-out the Bayer pattern to raise the colour resolution.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 00:53 UTC
On article Shaking up the market: Pentax K-70 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

LightBug: Overall a fair review. But I find it odd in the introduction section that the reviewer feels like he needs to put in a plug for mirrorless cameras. What's the rush? Why not leave that toward the conclusion section when comparing to other cameras? Also one can use live-view with K-70 also if one does not want to deal with PDAF fine adjustment. Why not mention that instead of plugging away at how great mirrorless alternatives are to this camera being reviewed? Hello, you are reviewing Pentax K-70, not Sony A6000 or Olympus EM10-II, even you may be a fan of these cameras.

I've added a bit of market context to the X-T2 review.

In this instance, though, the K-70 is the only DSLR in its class to have AF microadjust. However it's necessary to qualify this by pointing out that several of its direct rivals do not have it because they don't need it.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 21:59 UTC
On article Shaking up the market: Pentax K-70 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

LightBug: Overall a fair review. But I find it odd in the introduction section that the reviewer feels like he needs to put in a plug for mirrorless cameras. What's the rush? Why not leave that toward the conclusion section when comparing to other cameras? Also one can use live-view with K-70 also if one does not want to deal with PDAF fine adjustment. Why not mention that instead of plugging away at how great mirrorless alternatives are to this camera being reviewed? Hello, you are reviewing Pentax K-70, not Sony A6000 or Olympus EM10-II, even you may be a fan of these cameras.

That's a fair point and one I'll go back and address. I mentioned the competition at the beginning of the conclusion (which should be an echo of the introduction) but not the first page.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

steve from indy: on one hand you call the D500s a/f ludicrously fast then rate it mediocre ???

...in video mode.

I'll see if I can rephrase that to make it less ambiguous.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 19:30 UTC
On article Shaking up the market: Pentax K-70 Review (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

LightBug: Overall a fair review. But I find it odd in the introduction section that the reviewer feels like he needs to put in a plug for mirrorless cameras. What's the rush? Why not leave that toward the conclusion section when comparing to other cameras? Also one can use live-view with K-70 also if one does not want to deal with PDAF fine adjustment. Why not mention that instead of plugging away at how great mirrorless alternatives are to this camera being reviewed? Hello, you are reviewing Pentax K-70, not Sony A6000 or Olympus EM10-II, even you may be a fan of these cameras.

The introduction of **all** our reviews describes the camera and sets the context of the market it competes in. That means detailing its competitors and giving some idea of the distinctions.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

67gtonr: Is the Canon EOS M-5 going to be added to this Roundup?

No, its list price of $1099 (body only) will put it in the roundup below this.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: SONY a6300 is too cheaper to get in $1.2-2K, but SONY a6500?

Our E-M1 II review is underway: we'll be posting test results as we conclude them.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 01:02 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: "While it's a bit early to draw final conclusions"

Maybe take that camera out of the list until you can draw final conclusions?

albert2014 - yes, absolutely.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: >>>>>>>>>>Only current models were included.<<<<<<<<<<<<
SO what was the Olympus mkii doing here then ??

The GH5 and a6500 will be added as soon as we've had a chance to use them.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

photowurks: How are there comments from months ago on an article supposed published today?

Today we published the updated version of the roundup, adding the latest cameras, but it's built on the existing roundup from earlier in the year. Any comments before today will not have seen the current list of cameras or the current recommendations.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

vermaden: Where is SONY?

A68?

A6300?

A6500?

The a6500 will be included in this roundup as soon as we've had a chance to test one.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: SONY a6300 is too cheaper to get in $1.2-2K, but SONY a6500?

We've got an E-M1 Mark II and have shot with it enough to add it to this roundup (though the text and possibly the conclusions will be updated once we've finished the review).

We've not yet had access to a production spec a6500, so it's not yet included here. It'll be added as soon as we've had a chance to shoot with it.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

Keith57: Strange language. What's a crop sensor? Is it a sensor that stated out a certain size and then gets chopped down? What's on earth is 'full frame'? Is it a mythical standard size? What about all those cameras with a really big sensor (Medium format) are they 'expanded sensors'?

Just curious, what's wrong with just 35mm, m4/3, etc? aren't all of these 'Full Frame' ;-)

This is a roundup aimed at a general audience. These terms are widely used and widely understood.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: Your summary is simplistic and incorrect when it is considered in absolute terms.

If you argue that when you downsample/upsample images to one size and compare them, then yes, the larger sensors fair better, not surprising. If that is what you argue, then do so, but there is little value in that when you are trying to explain "brightness" of different sensors, but this is opposite of educating people.

A yellow flower with light value of x at 100iso, f2.8, 1/125sec, will produce exactly, 100% same light value on sensor regardless of sensor size or focal length.

I'm objecting to your summary paragraphs, not what you know.

With regards noise, I'm afraid I don't recognise your description at all.

Rather than trying to point you to my own, simplified summary of the sources of noise, it's probably safer to direct you to [Emil Martinec's much more detailed breakdown of the factors that contribute to noise](http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/).

I'm finding it somewhat challenging to follow two interleaved discussions, so please send me a personal message if you want to continue this discussion.

I'm not saying anyone buys 40MP cameras to only output at 10MP. What i'm saying is that, if you're comparing two differently sized sensors, it doesn't matter whether the larger sensor is higher res or the same: assuming comparable sensor tech, the larger sensor will be able to outperform the smaller sensor almost directly in proportion to the size difference.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 18:44 UTC
Total: 5537, showing: 1301 – 1320
« First‹ Previous6465666768Next ›Last »